Judgment : This appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Managing Director, KSRTC, Bangalore is directed against the common judgment dated 20.06.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-2) insofar as it relates to award in MVC.No.5118 of 2004. 2. The respondent herein filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the personal injury said to have been sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.08.2004 near Yentaganahali, as a result, the KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-1745 dashing against the parked lorry by the side of the road. The claim petition was opposed by the appellant-Corporation on the ground that the claimant did not suffer any injury therefore he is not entitled for any compensation. 3. During the trial, the appellant-Corporation did not seriously dispute the accident, as a result of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-19/F-1745 dashing against the parked lorry. However the dispute was only to the effect that the claimant did not suffer any injury in the said accident. During the enquiry the claimant examined himself as a witness and produced the wound certificate said to have been issued by a Doctor. However he did not examine the Doctor who issued the said wound certificate or the doctor who treated him. Nevertheless the Tribunal by the judgment under appeal while disposing of all the claim petitions arising out of the same accident, held that the claimant in this case entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- having regard to the contents of the wound certificate produced by him. The compensation was directed to be paid with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Corporation has presented this appeal. 4. Inspite of service of notice of this appeal, the respondent–claimant has remained absent and unrepresented. 5. The compensation was directed to be paid with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Corporation has presented this appeal. 4. Inspite of service of notice of this appeal, the respondent–claimant has remained absent and unrepresented. 5. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant– Corporation brought to the notice of this Court that the appeals filed against the awards pertaining to the other connected claim petitions have been allowed by this Court and the matters have been remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, mainly on the ground that the claimants in each of the cases have merely produced the wound certificates and have not examined the doctors who issued the wound certificates and in the absence of any such evidence, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding compensation merely on the basis of the wound certificate. A copy of the judgment in M.F.A.No.6422 of 2006, dated 17.12.2009 is also produced for perusal. 6. Perusal of the judgment under appeal shows that the claimant–respondent has merely produced the wound certificate said to have been issued by a Doctor and he has not examined the said Doctor. Though according to the claimant he suffered fracture of 7th and 8th ribs on the left side, dislocation of the left shoulder joint as well as hair line fracture of shaft of femur, except wound certificate, no other documentary evidence was produced by him to substantiate the said contention. X-rays to evidence the fracture have also not been produced. Though the learned Counsel for the Corporation contended before the Tribunal that in the absence of any such documentary evidence and in the absence of examination of the doctor, no compensation can be awarded to the claimant on the basis of the wound certificate only, the Tribunal rejected the said contention and has awarded global compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The method adopted by the Tribunal in awarding global compensation of Rs.25,000/- only based on the wound certificate is not proper and not in accordance with law. 7. The method adopted by the Tribunal in awarding global compensation of Rs.25,000/- only based on the wound certificate is not proper and not in accordance with law. 7. Having regard to the fact that the awards passed in the other claim petitions arising out of the same accident have already been set aside by this Court, it is just and proper to set aside the award passed in MVC.No.5118/2004 also and to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law by affording reasonable opportunities to both the parties to lead further evidence if any and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award pertaining to MVC No.5118/2004 is here by set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Registry is directed to refund the statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing this appeal to the appellant. No order as to costs.